Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 2 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of paraphilias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

voyeurism

Can any of these which involve an act, also define someone who just watches, not necessarily does it themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.183 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question and I dont know the answer but there is a way to define exaclty what is being referred to precisely say voyeuristic watching without participation of fetish 'x' as "voyeuristic 'x'" and the problem of defining it at least is then solved. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Homosexuality should not be on this list

In this edit, an editor added homosexuality to this list. In my opinion, though not to completely go against WP:Assume good faith, it may have been added in a way so that not much attention would be drawn to it, such as titling part of the edit summary "homophilia." Either way, this is complete nonsense. This article is titled List of paraphilias. Not List of past and present paraphilias. Even with the note that homosexuality was once thought of as a paraphilia, it doesn't belong on this list. Most researchers have declared that this attraction is normal. The very normal/common attraction to breasts is also on this list, which is ludicrous, and is why I took the time to clarify that such attraction is normal after an editor cut away that information again. Normal attractions shouldn't be on this list. And I'm contacting editors at the Homosexuality article and ones at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies about the homosexuality listing. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that the breasts entry was removed. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"List of paraphilias" makes no specification of current status. We could break out past and current into separate parts in the same list or otherwise mark them. If we want to remove homosexuality entirely (a POV move if you ask me), we should rename the article. This is not titled List of current paraphilias, which I would support to show that the "scientific" definitions shift with social custom. According to people who think paraphilia is a legitimate concept, attraction to breasts is , a type of partialism. See The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology etc. Jokestress (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

See my comment below about partialism. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; unfortunately, I am being WP:HOUNDed by user:Jokestress. Because I am openly gay, she re-adds homosexuality (and related terms) to this page when she dislikes something I write somewhere else. I recently created Erotic target location error, which Jokestress thinks is politically incorrect, so she promptly re-added homosexuality to this page as her “See? Now, how do you like being called paraphilic???”.

Jokestress’ dismissal of other editors’ input about this, both here and at Paraphilia:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_paraphilias/Archive_1#Emphasis_on_DSM_codes_and_history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paraphilia/Archive_5#Homosexuality.3F
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paraphilia/Archive_5#RS_for_homosexuality_as_a_DSM_paraphilia.3F

Her repeated prior attempts to evade the consensus:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_paraphilias&diff=270358827&oldid=270130546
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_paraphilias&diff=231747112&oldid=231688014
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paraphilia&diff=382825778&oldid=382823666

— James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. We list celestial objects formerly classified as planets at List of planets. We can list sexual interests formerly classified as paraphilias here. The only people who seem to gave an issue with it seem to have a personal stake in the matter, e.g., an activist minority in the mental health field. Jokestress (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be there, but listed as no longer considered a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• 109 is right. Things that are no longer classified as paraphilias may not appear in the main list. If the consensus is to list things that were formerly classified as paraphilias, let us create a section of the article - rather than including non-paraphilias in the main list, however many additional notes they have. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be much clearer not to include things that are not paraphilias in the main list. If historical artifacts are included in the article, they should be kept separate, following the precedent of List of planets. One might view this as evidence that the definitions are non-scientific and shift based on social custom, or one might view it as evidence that the genuine scientific understanding of the area has been legitimately refined, but either way, it is clearer to have them separated.

Incidentally, the first reference supporting the homophilia entry (currently 34), the 1974 APA position statement, doesn't link to a 1974 APA position statement. Nor does either the link target nor the actual 1973 position APA position statement, as far as I can tell, describe homosexuality as a paraphilia.--Trystan (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"List of paraphilias" does indeed make a specification of current status. The title says it all -- List of paraphilias. Homosexuality is no longer considered a paraphilia by most researchers. As for breasts, according to the DSM-IV-TR and as noted in the Partialism article, partialism is only categorized as a paraphilia "if it is not part of normative stimulation or causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life." I don't have much of a problem with breasts or any other normal attraction to a body part being listed as a paraphilia as long as it is made clear that the attraction(s) are now considered normal or are only considered abnormal under certain circumstances. As for Jokestress's motives for adding homosexuality, we should focus more on the content instead of the editor, but I also considered that she added homosexuality out of spite, meaning because of her conflict with Mr. James Cantor. In that first link displayed by Mr. Cantor above, Mr. Cantor also says that Paraphilia NOS are not paraphilias. Furthermore, if scientific definitions shift with social custom so much, most paraphilias that were considered paraphilias 20 years ago wouldn't still be considered paraphilias today; but that is beside the point. Jokestress says "The only people who seem to ave an issue with it seem to have a personal stake in the matter." That is not true in my case. And I don't mind homosexuality being mentioned in this article, but it should be listed like it was before it was removed months ago or something similar to that. The links that Mr. Cantor displayed above show that WP:Consensus is against homosexuality being on the main list. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're listing it as a paraphilia then under WP:WEIGHT it should be countered with the mainstream scientific view, saying it is not a paraphilia but was once considered to be one for political reasons. That or the article is renamed, or possibly split into past and present in a neutral manner. Thanks ツ Jenova20 08:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How many such entries are there? If it's just homosexuality, it might be worth including a section discussing, briefly, with a {{main}}, that homosexuality was a paraphilia. If there are several, it might be worth including a separate section with a table, with an added column specifying when it was "removed" as a paraphilia. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with a "scientific"-looking list of an unscientific subject is that lists make it difficult to explain the politics and criticisms of the list itself. "Pedohebephilia" should be discussed here, considered by Allen Frances to be "one of the most poorly written and unworkable of the suggested criteria sets." Élisabeth Roudinesco has identified the decision by psychiatrists, in demagogic fashion, to depathologize homosexuality and embrace "paraphilia" as the moment psychiatry attempted to turn subjective concepts into objective concepts, which she calls a "disaster" that abandoned the phenomenological roots of the discipline. A list like this is reification, and there are plenty of caveats regarding the very concept of paraphilia. I propose we organize this like the aforementioned List of planets, or maybe like List of astrological traditions, types, and systems. That list splits out current and former "sciences" with a good see also section, so the true believers might be exposed to the evidence that their "scientific" belief system is a fallacy. Jokestress (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Those would seem to be questions for the individual pages. If paraphilias are identified in the scientific and/or medical literature that would seem adequate to include them in this list. Homosexuality is the most visible former paraphilia (and is probably unique given its change in status along with that visibility), it should be mentioned on this page, but should only be in the list if accompanied by a prominent statement noting that it is no longer considered a paraphilia. And given the prominence and discussion required, it might be better to have a separate section. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has made a good improvement on the page. Because I do think we should also include nonsense like pedohebephilia on this list, maybe the title of that section should be changed from "Non-paraphilic sexual interests formerly categorized as paraphilic" to "Disputed and deprecated paraphilias" or something to that effect. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would want to make sure we did not conflate "disputed" things with things that have been officially removed. If things are "disputed" but still listed, we might put that in a separate section if the sourcing was good enough, but deprecated things should have their own section. This, however, is not my area of expertise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article body consists of only 3 sections. One of them is just on homophilia. If this was a bigger article, then that would be fine. However, it is better to put it back on the table but saying that it's formerly considered as such. Alternately just delete it altogether. I'm going with the first option. Acoma Magic (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that since it's not a paraphilia and the table is of paraphilias. Leave the section an appropriate size compared to the rest of the article without violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. It's not a paraphilia so sticking it back in the table is problematic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the table should have information on former and current opinions on what counts as a paraphilia. A whole subsection on homophilia is undo weight on such a small article. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it. This article contains a simple list of current paraphilias. Homosexuality should not be singled out as a paraphilia that was declassified over 40 years ago (unless we include all other declassified paraphilias during the last century). It also violates WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV. Intrepid (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We should. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. When we expand the article to include a history of past paraphilias, it should be included. However, it should not be the only one listed in the article. Intrepid (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. An amicable solution and a resolution to the article name vs the article content problem. Thanks ツ Jenova20 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Cantor must have miswrote when he stated that Paraphilia NOS are not paraphilias, or was only talking about some kinky sexual attractions that can't otherwise be categorized, because, with the exception of some aspects of partialism, all of the sexual attractions listed in that article are paraphilias. He even recently created that article, on August 12 2012. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Current and former opinions on what counts as a paraphilia should be in the table or in a separate table

Title sums it up. If this page has become a graveyard, I'll do an RfC. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm voting for the same table, as opinion differs on what is a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion. The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association do not classify it a paraphilia. This article defines it as "...a form of sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her. A paraphilia involves sexual arousal and gratification towards sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme."

As I've commented above, when we expand the article to include a history of past paraphilias, it should be included. However, it should not be the only one listed in the article. Intrepid (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, that is problematic, as opinions differ on what to classify as a paraphilia. Therefore, current, former and divided opinions should be in the same table with a description of it. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. We can move this to List of current paraphilias to disinclude disputed and deprecated terms like homosexuality and pedohebephilia. I would support this move to show that the "scientific" definitions shift with social custom. But a list of paraphilias should include some explanation of former paraphilias the way we do with Pluto on List of planets. Jokestress (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that we can't separate them, as it is problematic regarding what to include in "List of current paraphilias". Acoma Magic (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jokestress. We also should use those listed by the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association. This is physiological classification, not a matter of public opinion. Any questionable ones can be put into a third section. Intrepid (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The concept of paraphilia is clearly a matter of public opinion and what constitutes "normative" in any given time and culture. If we move this to list of current paraphilias, I believe we should still handle deprecated and disputed paraphilias on the same page. They are all still iatrogenic artifacts, like hystero-epilepsy and what-not. Jokestress (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some non-American and American organisations/studies/scientists/groups would be preferable. Also, limiting it to the opinion of just three organisations isn't possible. I don't think we can drum up enough paraphilias to make three sections that also won't look odd by having just a couple in them. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"...opinions differ on what to classify as a paraphilia. Therefore, current, former and divided opinions should be in the same table with a description of it." What reliable sources do we have stating that there is a significant difference of modern opinion as to whether homosexuality is a paraphilia? Based on the sources in the article, it is not one, and so shouldn't be included in the main list.--Trystan (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The case for and against was allegedly put forth in this recent article by James Cantor, the Misplaced Pages SPA who does most of the editing here: However, it's not a fair or accurate summary of the arguments about why homosexuality can be defined as a paraphilia. Frankly, a gay guy is probably not the the most objective POV "expert" to conclude that his sexuality is "euphilic" (good love) but someone who preferentially dates overweight people etc. is dysphilic (bad love). It's certainly still in debate whether homosexuality is a paraphilia. Hence the recent article, flaws and all. Jokestress (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This section I started isn't just specific to homosexuality. It's for everything that was formerly, currently, or disputably classified as a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, my response was to Trystan who asked if there is "a significant difference of modern opinion as to whether homosexuality is a paraphilia." I agree we should list all the made-up pathologies psychologists have created for human sexuality if they have been or are classified as paraphilias, per List of planets . Jokestress (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality is the only entry in the article that is currently reliably sourced as falling under the category of "formerly classified as a paraphilia," so proposing to mix that category-of-one into the main list naturally leads to discussion of its sole member. As the sources we have all agree that it is not a paraphilia, why would we do that? List of planets includes Pluto, but in a separate section.--Trystan (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also list "pedohebephilia" and "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder" (PCD) as proposed but rejected paraphilias. We should also consider moving those that are not formally classified as mental disorders, like hebephilia. Source Psychiatric Times and others. The "experts" who proposed it are all butthurt about getting shut down, but common sense prevailed in this one instance.

• APA guidelines ignored in development of diagnostic criteria for pedohebephilia
• Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias
• Forensic and Diagnostic Concerns Arising From the Proposed DSM-5 Criteria for Sexual Paraphilic Disorder
• Commentary: Hebephilia—A Would-be Paraphilia Caught in the Twilight Zone Between Prepubescence and Adulthood
• Is a diagnostic category for paraphilic coercive disorder defensible?

Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress says, "It's certainly still in debate whether homosexuality is a paraphilia." Yes, among a minority of researchers, especially those of the NARTH variety. We don't follow WP:FRINGE views or an otherwise significant minority at Misplaced Pages. In psychology, the majority matters most, as is the case with many majority vs. minority issues. And the majority of experts state that homosexuality is not a paraphilia. Ang again, that's not by a slight margin either. It's by a landslide.

Jokestress speaks of "fair" and "most objective" in reference to Cantor being a gay man. Well, it's also not fair and most objective to have a transwoman trying to get homosexuality listed as a paraphilia all because she has a grudge against a researcher/editor -- Cantor -- who has agreed with concluding that certain transgender aspects are mental disorders or paraphilias. If Cantor is a single-purpose account, Jokestress is just as much one...constantly following him around with the single goal to discredit any work he does (such as her constant mentioning of pedohebephilia, a proposal made by Cantor and his colleagues). She just hides her single-purpose mindset better. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

• List of current paraphilias
• List of previous paraphilias

There's a big difference and there's no reason to discredit opinions just because they come from American sources, especially since they're pretty big names involved and pretty darn reliable. If the article is going to list all paraphilias in the same table along with previous ones then i'll push for an article rename as i believe it to be impossible not to violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT with a single section and 1 line explanation we currently have for everything. Opinions? ツ Jenova20 22:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename the article and keep em all in the same table. Disputed paraphilias aren't covered by splitting into two articles. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Acoma Magic. That proposal feels like a POV fork. List of current paraphilias seems fine to me, as it helps show that this is a list based on definitional quicksand and social custom. However, that page should include an explanation of why we say current paraphilias, with the list of disputed and deprecated paraphilias included on the same page. Jokestress (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's already inappropriate, it's even more inappropriate to list it in an article named "Current" paraphilias. ツ Jenova20 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should not be retitled. As Trystan stated, "Homosexuality is the only entry in the article that is currently reliably sourced as falling under the category of 'formerly classified as a paraphilia'." Therefore, "List of current paraphilias" makes no sense. It begs the question, "Then where is List of past paraphilias?" There isn't one because there are no others, except for in the context of body parts associated with sex that were once thought of as clinical...but are now considered normal. Attraction to breasts and ass and other body parts associated with sex are not necessarily classified as paraphilias. The paraphilia classification for those comes with conditions. Even sexual attraction to feet -- foot fetishism -- is not necessarily a paraphilia. This is what needs to be addressed in the lead, or on the Wiki-table for each normal attraction to a body part, considering that attraction to ass, for example, is considered normal in the modern world. Basically, seeing as only two people -- Jokestress and Acoma Magic -- are pressing for homosexuality to be grouped in with current paraphilias, I don't see why others should give into their insistance. Jokestress speaks of POV fork. Titling this article "List of current paraphilias" is her POV title. As admitted, it's a title for her to make a WP:POINT that paraphilias are not a valid categorization and are "based on definitional quicksand and social custom." On her user page, she also states that she's an inclusionist. She seems to be an extreme inclusionist, however, and likely doesn't see zoophilia as a paraphilia either (and on that note, that article needs a lot of work; a lot of pro-zoophilia edits by a single editor going on there, with the occasional editor combating those edits). Again, no need for a different title. Homosexuality is not a paraphilia, as experts on sexuality/sexual orientation overwhelmingly state, and there is therefore no need that it should be on the Wiki-table. It can have a brief mention in this article, in the lead, or in some History aspect, but this is already covered at the Paraphilia article. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your points made (the last ones) and am inclined to agree. If homophilia/sexuality is not clearly seperate from the table it should be removed since it is already present in the Paraphilia article and there is no reason to lump it in with a list of currently classified paraphilias when it is not.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RS list of paraphilias

Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association September 22, 2009 has a list of paraphilias if you are looking for reliable support to include an item in this list. Go to the link and search "paraphilias" and the list will be just below that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Table column

The table column is "Paraphilias" and so if Homophilia is to be placed in there under that header it may well be a violation of WP:Personal attacks against every gay editor here. Just a heads-up. Thanks ツ Jenova20 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Absence of sexual jealousy

For most persons, sexual jealousy is clearly commonplace. It's so common, in fact, that one easily ignores the existence of individuals whom the emotion is entirely alien to. A relevant question on this talk page is whether that trait of personality is sexually deviant. Another is whether there is a name for the condition in medicine. If it cannot be designated deviant nor pathological, I suggest to add it to Section “Technical terms for non-paraphilic sexual interests,” if it has a name. If it doesn't have a name, however, I hold it that a new name should be injected into circulation. It has been done before in psychiatry: the autistic community engendered neurotypical. If we decide to take the proposed course of action, I endorse the candidate azealotypic. The word is derived from the Latin zelotypia, meaning jealousy. The derived word reads azealotypic rather than azelotypic in order to conform to the etymology of the English zeal, which was too derived from a word formed by the same Latin root zelus. A(n)- is a negative in Latin and Greek. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The only worthy rival I see now would be a word derived from invidentia or invidia. Nonetheless, invidia is the precursor of the English envy, not jealousy, for which zelus itself is the precursor. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages, and in particular entries on this page, are based on reliable sources, not personal opinion which is considered original research. Also,[REDACTED] is not the place to coin or popularize neologisms. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that. Thought I would just put it out there, in case something would come out of it. By the way, mind you that this is how “reliable sources” emerge. Everything begins from ideas. EIN (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not on wikipedia. Misplaced Pages does not predict and does not publish original research. Until mainstream sexological or psychological sources publish on the idea, it should not appear on a main page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex

• All unassessed articles
• List-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• List-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles